What improvements has Canon's Hybrid AF system brought to the EOS 650D's usability in live view, and what might this mean for the forthcoming EOS-M mirrorless camera? As a precursor to our imminent 650D/Rebel T4i review, we've published two videos showing how Hybrid AF works, compared both to conventional phase-detection AF and to a contemporary mirrorless rival (in this case the Panasonic DMC-G5). It's a chance see how the 650D performs but also gives an idea of what we can expect from the EOS-M, which uses the same technologies.

For these videos we've used a Canon EOS Rebel T4i with the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM lens designed specifically for use with the camera's Hybrid AF system. A further explanation of the system can be found by clicking here, but the basic idea is that phase-detection elements on the main sensor help determine the distance of the subject and contrast detection then performs a focus fine-tune, at that distance. The 18-135mm STM's lens' design features a light, internal focus group that can be quickly accelerated and decelerated to suit this autofocus behavior, and uses a stepping motor to allow fast, quiet and precise movement. The EOS-M uses the same technologies and similar designs to offer the same functions.

Comments

I'm surprised people think STM lenses focus faster. Designed for movie autofocus they are slower and quieter for smoother focus transition while recording.

i.e. you need to test a regular EF lens if you are comparing single shot autofocus AND you probably need to make sure the focus target is inside the limited "+" shaped zone in the center of the sensor if you really want to check the hybrid AF's performance.

Nikon 1 has both PD and CD AF off-sensor and the PDAF is blazing fast, the CDAF is not that bad either. It changes to CDAF when light gets too low or contrast is lacking, even though in my exp it works incredibly well.

one more point: i do think that hybrid AF performance with an ultrasonic EF lens like the short panny zoom used here will be slightly better for still photos AF speed. The STM lenes are not for speed. It may be louder but I think it will be faster, although again I do think it will be slight. Try a 17-40 or something similar to the 14-45 panny you tested.

There seems to be a lot of confusion in these comments about what these videos show. A couple of conclusions and observations to put this in perspective: 1. Rebel's main and preferred AF mode is thru the viewfinder, which is phase AF, and is very fast. G5 has one AF mode, contrast AF via live view (or an electronic viewfinder, same thing) and it is also very fast on a still subject. Tests show the G3, GH2, G5 are as fast to faster focusing on still subjects than the rebel, 60d, on still subjects. 2. Rebel AF is generally preferred and superior to G5 AF on moving subjects. 3. As a secondary mode of AF on the rebel, live view, still objects AF is v.slow with hybrid AF compared to G5. 4. As to video AF, which is primary benefit to rebel, Hybrid AF may or may not work, though early videos of similar scenes show it favorable to G5 video AF IMHO. 5. Has DP review talked to Canon? Can firmware improve performance? 6. Hybrid is more critical for EOS-M as sole AF method.

I see again you censor my benign and apt observation that your videos are excellent examples of the wadsworth constant run a muck. There is no need for such a long period at the beginning of the video in which nothing happens whatsoever. It bores the viewer to tears and it is a waste of time. It is akin to flooding a gallery with lots of bad shots. You show that you can't take criticism of any kind very well at all here by doing so, by deleting my comment repeatedly. My critique here is not meant to savage, but to help, as a very long term reader here. But, if you do not wish to improve, then I will leave you be to stagnate all you like. I cannot and will not force you to improve, you have to want it yourself, although that is what I thought these here comment sections were partly for. Good luck.

Anybody noticed that even in the Hybrid mode the mirror moves?So probably in the EOS-M it will be much faster, as the nikon 1, and probably the new NEX 5R.I guess that sony, panasonic and olympus, have much better contrast detection than canon or nikon, so i hope when one of them put this hybrid to work, they will succeed.But one thing that these videos don't show is the accuracy difference, i think working togheter the accuracy will be always better, with hybrid AF.

In "hybrid" mode (right on the top video, left on the bottom), the mirror only moves /after/ focus and exposure. The Rebel series does not have "silent mode" and so the mirror must go down/up after the shot as part of the reset mechanism.

Yes, even ignoring the delay caused by the mirror, the AF acquisition time on the Canon is dramatically slower than on the Panasonic. Given how many years Canon has been working on CDAF, and how many competing cameras do it better, it's depressing how poor Canon's live view AF is.

Here is a test that would have a decent chance of showing if there is/isn't any improvement due to Hybrid AF. Start with three targets with vertical detail placed at different distances. Make sure two are clearly within the hybrid AF zone and one is not -- perhaps place one in the exact center one a little left and one a lot right. Focus on one, then the other, and then back to the first. Repeat the same test with the target outside of the Hybrid zone so we know it's pure CDAF. If the focus speed is the same inside/outside, then Hybrid is not really doing anything. If the focus speed is different, then you have the likely best case for improvement due to the hybrid PD pixels. Compare to the G5 or Quick AF speed for the same target size/distance (quick AF will need different outer target positioning to hit the AF sensor.)

Why do an apples vs oranges comparison between a DSLR and a mirrorless camera when you could just as easily have compared Canon's new hybrid sensor tech against the tech available in its competitor's DSLRs? When you do that side by side autofocus speed test for video capture, then I'll sit up and take notice.

I just wanted to see the 600D traditional CD AF next to the 650D Hybrid AF to determine if there was an improvement. That might be more useful for those looking at the EOS M since it is likely a Canon body they're looking at rather than the "mirrorless" ecosystem (I think ILC is more accurate representation of what a "mirrorless" camera's selling feature is....just like the SLR is indicative of what makes it special and desirable).

With lenses designed for an EF-M mount I'd imagine any improvement in the 650D AF speed would mean even more in a camera with a shorter flange focal distance.

Yes, but focus motors and the glass elements attached to them move through physical space not along wires. Having a shorter distance between the imaging plane and the focus group could make a difference.

99% of the people do not know the difference between the AF systems. for them it is just AF, and thats how actually anyone else should look at it too. AF is AF and it should be fast, accurate and ideally allow focusing on moving objects

This is an especially tricky type of test to do and get definitive results. There are so many variations in subjects - some of which favor PDAF and others that will favor CDAF. One hard part to rule out is that CDAF can get 'lucky'. What makes CDAF slow is not knowing which way to move first - but that only makes it slow if it chooses incorrectly to start with. Panasonic seems to be pretty intelligent about the guessing part - which adds to the perceived (and actual) speed. My experience with the Panasonic GH2, Olympus OM-D and Canon 7D is that for static subjects in different lights they can all be fast, and depending on lens can end up hunting for focus. There are certainly cases where the GH2 beat my 7D for focus acquisition in low light, but also cases where the opposite was true. Primes seem to be slower than smaller aperture zooms

In short - I'm glad both technologies are improving and getting combined. All around performance is getting better and better in both camps...

Summary:1. The Hybrid AF is not as fast as Quick AF for this target.2. the T4i+18-135 STM is slower than the G5+14-42mm for static scene live view AF for these targets (although DPR says this represents their experience with other situations.)

What this means for EOS-M and the usability of the T4i vs. other designs is when the interpretations vary because it then becomes highly speculative or subjective.

Basically, Canon's liveview still sucks when compared to the competition, even with the help of on sensor PDAF.

Some possible causes: - Canon's CDAF algorithm is behind - the stepper motor in the STM lenses aren't as quick as others in mirrorless lenses - connections between sensor, processing and lens is slow

That said, there's potential here. When (and not if) Canon improves their CDAF to the same level as others, this hybrid would be their trump card. It can solve the remaining issue with CDAF: continuous AF.

I think your "When (and not if)" comment may be optimistic. Canon's had CDAF for what, at least 3 generations of DSLRs? And it was dog slow then, and it's still dog slow. I don't understand why, either. Every other manufacturer has made great strides in CDAF technology in the same, or shorter, period of time.

I've shot EOS since the first EOS film camera, but I'm growing increasingly jaded.

Yeah I also don't get what's taking Canon so long to get CDAF working. I love my Canon DSLR, but seriously they should have solved the CDAF problem by now - live view is basically not usable except for manual focusing or static subjects when you aren't on a time budget.

I do really hope it's a "when" not an "if" issue, but I'm losing hope that it'll come anytime soon...

Unless they pull something off for the EOS M in the next two months, I suspect they are going to get a lot of negative reviews (although that may finally make them wake up and realize it's important).

I find this development intriguing. I've used both types of focus extensively over the years and cdaf, while certainly more accurate has some significant failings still. Especially when it comes to tracking as well and low light situations where pdaf rules the day. Having switched to pure dslr shooting, I ultimately prefer pdaf and find it more than adequate and quite fast. I'm not too sold on this hybrid system. Here's the thing: how much shutter lag is induced? Obviously the sensor must be exposed to use the cdaf sites, so clearly the shutter must close and reopen right? Or does it use an electronic shutter with the curtain merely closing at the end of exposure? Also I don't think keeping the shutter curtain open all the time is good for dust. Mirror boxes get dusty fast, and the shutter curtain helps keep a good bit of that away from the sensor. Just some thoughts.

What recent cameras have you used CDAF in low light? I find the GH2 and OM-D to be at least as good as my EOS gear, with or without focus assist lights. I'd agree that some earlier cameras, especially Olympus Pens, struggled in low light, but that problem has been solved.

CDAF autofocus has always been more accurate, but for a long time phase detection AF had the advantage of speed. That's no longer the case for static subjects - a well-implemented CDAF is now just as fast if not faster than good PDAF systems.

The one advantage remaining for well-implemented PDAF is its ability to continuously track subjects moving towards or away from the camera. If Canon's hybrid system can do that well and still maintain the high accuracy of a CDAF system then it's a worthwhile achievement. I wouldn't rush to judge it without knowing whether they've been able to achieve that goal or not.

But as the processing speeds and algorithms for CDAF continue to improve I think that it won't be all that long before it's able to match PDAF for continuous tracking too.

I would have assumed that Canon of all companies would have the knowledge and manpower to create a fast CDAF. Olympus struggled in the beginning with the E-P1, it wasn't until they re-designed the AF mechanism in the lenses that AF speed/accuracy was 'good enough'. I wouldn't be surprised if we will see CDAF overtake PDAF in the future with better software algorithms, lens motors and processors...

As far as focus goes. The T4i blows away my Canon Mark II in autofocus. I recently used the 135mm 2.0 at my kids football practice and focus was dead on at 2.0. I find myself using this camera instead of my 5D Mark II. I can't believe it, but it is true. The added software makes the 5DII interface seem outdated.

The "master with the SLT design" is not a compliment. They've mastered Auto Focus in Live View by removing the option to get a partially hazed mirror out of the sensor's way and use all the light coming through the lens. Sony came up with a compromise that was reasonable to some people at the time, but if PD AF sensors can be integrated into the sensor itself for people who insist on using Live View instead of the viewfinder then the SLT design will quickly become a fossil...and rightly so. The SLT design is a compromise that should be made very, very carefully by consumers considering what else is available The master of all the one-legged Ninjais not the same as the Ninja master.

"The EOS 650D has a new 'Hybrid CMOS' sensor that now includes pixels dedicated to phase detection autofocus (in a similar fashion to Nikon's 1 J1 and 1 V1 mirrorless cameras). The Hybrid AF system uses these to set the lens quickly to roughly the correct distance, then uses contrast detection AF to fine-tune focus." -- DPReview

Each AF point on the main sensor takes light away from several thousand pixels. Now imagine putting 20 points on the main sensor. That's taking a lot of light away from the sensor too. Now image putting 102 points on the main sensor (the rumored A99 AF system).

Besides, as you can see, Canon version doesn't perform as well as SLT cameras. Sony has main sensor PDAF patents dating back to 2009. It's rumored new Nex models will incde that, but obviously Sony thinks SLT is superior than on sensor PDAF for A-mount.

The SLT designs, unfortunately, share a [potential] problem with all other non-sensor focusing systems: front and back focus. On chip sensors eliminate this. Frankly, if I want good PDAF (and I do), I think I'll stick with standard DSLRs with OVFs. For my needs, at least, I don't see any real advantage to the SLTs. (Yes, I do realize that my needs aren't the same as everyone else's, and the SLT design may be a good compromise for some.

Okay, I'm not going to quote all of the goofy, quirky garbage you have to do in order to get that 12 fps. The link to the A77 says it all under the heading "Continuous Shooting and Buffering" http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/10The A77 was announced in Aug. 2011. The 7D was announced in Sept. 2009. The 7D does 8 fps without an aperture lockout or glitchy display issues. Shutter lag is .061 through the viewfinder and .202 in liveview. The A77 is .054. In two years they really made some leaps and bounds in AF technology. Mirror blur is only a concern in some very specific situations and there is a tried and true method for taking care of that. Sorry, but unless you absolutely require liveview all the time it's a really lousy compromise.The extra megapixels over the 7D are nice.....up until about ISO 400 when the A77 noise starts taking control and pulverizing detail.

Sony shouldn't have gone with the 24MP sensor for the A77. That's why there's too much noise because Sony made some poor choices there. Noise on the older Sony A55 is better.

Incidentally, I have seen reviews that say low light performance on the 650D is worse than on the 600D due to all the new AF pixels on the sensor taking away light from the sensor. Now that is a real concern for any buyers. Looks like it is Canon making the lousy compromises.

Even if they use 10,000 dots for the AF that would be 0.01% of the total. Go ahead and use 50,000 if you must and make it 0.27%! Now how much light are those dots losing, around half? How much light must Sony siphon off to get LiveView and AF? And how much sensitivity or accuracy do the AF sensors lose by getting a tiny fraction of the available light? And how much extra noise is there to compensate for the loss of light across the entire sensor for those compromises? Too much in my opinion, but obviously others have different priorities than I do. More power to them. I hope they enjoy their cameras and get some great shots. I think this technology sacrifices too much.

Obviously you've not seen the IQ from the E-M5. In every way equal or better than the 650D. AT LEAST, the AF is fast and it doesnt cause you allergy like the 650D !! Lol.. I think the 650D is a joke and EPIC FAIL!

The 4/3rds IQ is fine. The advantage of the smaller sensor is smaller lenses and a smaller, lighter package. Canon and the other camera makers who put larger sensors in their cameras can't have it both ways. It is just the physics of the situation.

@Gothmoth, I have been using my pan GH2, G2 (don't have that anymore) and recently GF3, for a while, especially GH2. I have printed 30" x 20" photos shot at F1.4 using the 25mm lens and the photos look gorgeous. As a pixel peeper I find it hard pressed to find any difference between my GH2 and the Canon 7D upto ISO 1600 after which 7D gains about half a stop to a stop advantage. But if you are printing large sizes you don't shoot at high ISOs anyway. It is because of Canon fanboys like you that Canon is getting away by putting out crap like this. My friend owns the 7D and he said once the continuous AF improves with CDAF he will be switching. At the moment the continuous AF is definitely better on the PDAF, but static objects there is no way you can tell a difference in real life shooting, and the CDAF on the mirrorless cameras is light years ahead of the CDAF crap that Canon and Nikon are putting out.

Actually, Canon can have it both ways. If they just match the pixel density of the m4/3 sensor, then they don't need a longer lens for a given FOV because they can crop. If lens sharpness is an issue, only the center of the lens must be sharp enough to support this (and they generally are.). The Canon lens would still be slightly larger to handle coverage at the wide end, but since the wide end will be wider for a given F/L, you'd need fewer lenses in your Canon kit, so it works out about the same.

Canon APS-C has only a marginally bigger sensor compared to m43. The difference is fairly small. Based on sensor size you would expect canon aps- to have half a stop of advantage over m43. So given equally good technology canon aps-c at ISO1200 should match m43 at ISO800. And thats just about what you get in G5 vs canon aps-c (the older 12MP m43 sensor was pretty bad though).

However canon is no longer the top of the line in sensor tech so whatever little advantage should be there is lost due to the superior sony tech used in E-M5. E-M5 m43 sensor matches and in some aspects exceeds the canon aps-c sensors.

On the one hand people say m43 has an advantage because it has a much smaller sensor which enables much smaller lenses. On the other hand people say m43 has no real disadvantage because m43 is only a little smaller than 1.6x or 1.5x. So which is it?

The Canon 650 CDAF is slow, but it looks a heck of a lot faster than the previous generation (60D) to me. The 60D is so slow I can hardly see it moving. At least now the 650 looks about the same speed as the Nikon D7000 CDAF. Seems like Canon might be holding back which is a mistake IMO.

Phase detection isn't better than contrast detection. It's the new feedback mechanism in the newer Canon lenses and cameras that improves focus. Lensrentals have a fantastic review which exposes the Canon hype for what it is:

"The two newest Canon cameras have more accurate phase-detection sensors than their previous cameras. The newest lenses have more accurate focus movement (or provide more accurate focus movement feedback, or both) that takes advantage of those sensors."

of course for the best AF performance you need the latest technology in lenses.. what a suprise!!!

who would have thought that a 24 year old 50mm f1.4 does not work as good as a new lens...... LOL

Canon's hybrid AF may be slow, but Nikon's V1 AF is incredible--much faster than even Panasonic when I've compared them. Although Nikon uses *only* PDAF when the light allows, so their definition of hybrid AF is different than Canon's.

This Hybrid-AF should be able to be a step up when it comes to video AF. But from what I have seen on the net in several tests it's still not there yet. It's nice Canon is finally giving it (and the mirrorless-concept) a try, but to little to late. I'm jumping ship. Just sold my Canon DSLR and switching to this lovely Panasonic G5. The future is in the mirrorless concept, so I'm betting on the horse that is currently implementing things best. We'll see what the future brings.

When contrast detect cameras struggle to focus I often move the focus square to overlap the edge of the object which usually solves the problem. In fact I would move the square from where it is on the Canon example to where it is on the Panasonic example to get focus. It does not seem to be a very convincing demonstration. In fact having the focus square in the middle of the body in a same sized image would be a tougher and more equivalent test.

Edit: Also looking at the examples the Panasonic focus square is also larger which helps especially when it overlaps the object.

The Canon uses PDAF to determine initial subject location before calling on CDAF to fine-tune. In the many tests we've run under different lighting conditions and with different subjects, the results you see in the videos we posted do not materially change. We're not talking about small performance differences here.

Thanks. I understand the first part of your statement: "The Canon uses PDAF to determine initial subject location before calling on CDAF to fine-tune". However, could you say if it is faster and more accurate than Phase AF only and than Contrast AF only?(itis not, right?)

You can see the overshoot and then correction of the "Hybrid AF" in the video. This seems inconsistent with how PDAF should work --which suggests (to me) that the PD sensors did not contribute to focus in this case. You see similar jitter when the subjects outside the Hybrid AF zone are chosen.

Erik, PDAF will not necessarily prevent 'overshoot'. What it will do in this hybrid system is prevent the lens from initially heading in the wrong direction. Once it is 'near' the subject, CDAF kicks in and does its front/back search for focus.

These tests look like they start at minimum focus distance. If so there is only one way to move and PD direction would not be of any advantage -- unlike PD distance estimation. Understanding when/if/how much the Hybrid AF does it's thing would be valuable.

We haven't seen it begin focus in the wrong direction for subjects that are in the central area of the scene where the PDAF sensors are located. We're looking at some options for doing video AF comparisons for a future article about the current state of DSLR and mirrorless AF.

Having bought and tested the 650D, I returned it and kept my 550D.While the features are fantastic, particularly the touchscreen, focus was a real problem, especially because in automode, aperture is wide open giving a small to non-existent depth of field. Video displayed the same characteristics. It may track, but never achieves sharp focus. The sensor appears to require far more light to operate resulting in higher ISO's, longer shutter speeds, and wider apertures, compared to earlier models.

I should say I only tested a single camera, and didn't dare invest time or money in a replacement. I think I'll grab a Lumix FZ200 instead. The lens alone (a 25-600mm F2.8!) would cost 4 times as much for a Canon DSLR. Not to mention 12 fps burst, upto 240fps video...http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200

Yeah...12fps...in JPEG! Also a 24-600 lens comes with a lot of compromises. I should know. I own a fz-35. I also have a pentax k-7. There is no comparison. Even at screen resolution. If your vision is poor and you do nothing but snapshots than the fz might be adequate. It wasn't for me, which is why I moved on to a real camera.

Why do people give equivalent lens ranges without equivalent f-stops? If you want to call it 25-600, then you're multiplying by the crop factor. That's great for comparison with the more traditional film standard and all but why don't you correct the f-stop by the crop factor too? f2.8 doesn't look so impressive when you have to multiply it by 5.2x crop. Your FZ200's f15 equivalent throughout lens speed is pretty terrible for anything beyond broad daylight.

I like bridge cameras. You don't need extra lenses and they work great as a camcorder from the back of the gym. Paired with a flash, they work well enough indoors too (where flash is legal). Still, I would never be bragging about the widest f-stop on one. That's like bragging about the size of your motor in a geo metro. Bridge cameras do lots of things well. The thing they are the WORST at is aperture.

"All types of autofocus /aim/ for both, with PDAF it's easier to get speed, with CDAF it's easier to get accuracy."

Except that today's best CDAF systems, like those on the G5, are every bit as fast as anyone's PDAF when shooting static subjects, while still being more accurate. Only when shooting moving subjects does PDAF really have any advantage over the best CDAF systems any more.

Second major flaw in this test. on p159 of the manual Canon warns that the system may have trouble when there is only horizontal detail, I.e. the Hybrid system only sees vertical detail. What did DPR use as a test subject?

1) in case of PDAF Canon handles with heavier lens elements very well. So I think the weight of moving elements are not an issue.2) you are right about hybrid AF area3) CDAF in Panasonic doesn't have a problem with horizontal details...

The weight of the elements you move is more important in CDAF than in PDAF, because when you do PDAF, you estimate how much you have to move, and then you do it, but in CDAF you move a bit, check, move another bit, check, etc. So you have to deal with the inertia problems of moving and stopping during the whole autofocus process. in PDAF you accelerate and decelerate only once (each) in the whole autofocus process.

Erik, we focused on three different objects in the video. And these comparative results match up with what we've experienced in using the 650D while producing the review (coming soon) in a range of real-world situations.

So you agree that that 2 of the 3 targets are outside of the hybrid AF zone? That when you are comparing AF speed to the G5 for these 2 targets you are only comparing conventional CDAF speed that has nothing to do with Hybrid AF? That should be noted in the narration. And then there are the issues with the center point (on the boundary of the zone and detail-type). This may or may not represent how fast/useful in Hybrid AF is "real world" situations but it's a bad example for direct comparison. If you want to compare to "Quick AF" you need to choose the /same/ focus point (center for both) and include vertical detail because Hybrid AF is not cross-sensitive.

Why on earth does that matter? There are clearly situations where canon is slower. You just want to find the perfect situation where the hybrid AF is faster? How many times are you going to come across a situation (object like that) in real life. Canon is slower and they are putting out technology that is old and outdated. Stop supporting canon so they start putting out real advances in photography instead of crap like this.

xvip: the restricted area and directional sensitivity of the T4i Hybrid AF zone could be a significant limitation in real world use. But as a demo for the /potential/ of Hybrid AF in the T4i, this one is poorly choosen. It's possible it's just as limited with an optimal target - but how do we know?

VJVIS, how does this matter? The title of the article is "Video tests of the Canon EOS 650D / Rebel T4i's Hybrid autofocus system". So when 2 of the 3 comparisons don't include the Hybrid zone (but dpreview forgets to mention this), it's a tad misleading. The T4i + 18-135 STM is likely slower in some/many/all situations but it deserves a better test.

Erik,As you know, the Hybrid AF system encompasses two different technologies, used in conjunction over a small area of the total scene. What we think is most useful for a short video (and keep in mind these were pulled from a forthcoming full review with more context) is to see how this 'system' performs against one that is mature. It's not a PDAF vs CDAF shootout, although that's where the comments quickly headed.

I thought the point of the shootout was to evaluate/compare the "Hybrid" part of the T4i live view AF system. Because of the targets and focus points chosen, it's not clear that you've done that (i.e. used the Hybrid feature benefits at all.)

Missing the Hybrid AF zone -- look the the diagram of the Hybrid AF area here:http://2.static.img-dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-650d-rebel-t4i/images/AFcoverage.jpg (page 3 of the preview) . The outer two targets are definitely not in the active hybrid zone and would not use this focus mode! Even the "center" press is near the top of the zone and may have missed using hybrid mode to any good effect.

Erik, look at the first video again and note that the AF point in hybrid mode is well within the phase detection boundary of the chip. And don't forget that the main advantage of PDAF in Canon's new hybrid approach is that it prevents the lens from heading in the wrong direction. Indeed, we've only seen the long CDAF hunt - focusing all the way out and all the way back in - occur well outside the central area of the sensor.

You have a strange definition of "well within". I overlaid your graphic of the Hybrid area with the image of the focus point from your video here: dpr://galleries/8632621561/photos/2158037. The center of the focus point box is almost exactly on the notched corner of the Hybrid zone. Canon's Hybrid AF may or may not work, but the demonstration here is dubious.

Erik, don't cling to brand loyalty. It's pretty obvious to everyone else than Canon's hybrid tech simply doesn't work well. Unless you think DPR is simply lying to us for some reason. Even if you were right, it's still a dismal performance for CDAF, compared to the G5 and other recent MILC cameras. And it sure doesn't bode well for the EOS-M.

This is bizarre - who takes pictures with an slr by pressing on the screen on the back of the camera?1. The experience would be better looking through the viewfinder.2. With low light and exposure the mirror will be down longer creating the illusion of speed - this exposure time is very slow - please test this in the sunlight.3. We need to see if the actual focusing is better for the phase detection. Some final prints from each with a very shallow lens would let us know much more.4. Please test this with moving objects in movie mode - moving at different speeds in different directions - pausing at different speeds to test overshoot - that would be interesting - as well as their vibration control.

Interesting though - DPR should include some movies of the camera's in actions to put some actual real world association to all those numbers that are shown - I love the numbers personally, bit it is hard to actually know what they all mean - thanks for all the hard work!

obviously they did press on the LCD to show you (visualise) the differences.....all those other tests are of course interesting but i would say about a 100 times more difficult.....what I find interesting is that they did not compare the speed of the phase on the EOS with the G5....would it stir up too much trouble here?

For stills, most people care about total shutter lag rather than AF speed. In live view Quick AF mode, the Canon would lose every time due to mirror flap. There is a reason almost no-one does eye-level AF+lag testing - it's darn hard and the results are lens and target specific.

The test is about what improvements has Canon's Hybrid AF system brought to the EOS 650D's usability in live view, and what might this mean for the forthcoming EOS-M mirrorless camera?In live view you don't look through the viewfinder and the EOS-M doesn't even have a viewfinder. So, what's bizarre about the test?

Ideally you'd like to use more similar lenses if you are just comparing the AF system. The 7x Canon lens has larger, heavier elements to move for focus than the little 3x Panasonic. So as a test of systems you can buy today, it's sort of valid although perhaps one of the 10x u4/3 lenses would be more similar in capability. For judging if hybrid AF can improve focus vs optimized CDAF, the lenses are really too different to make any firm conclusions.

The STM version of the 18-135mm only uses a single focusing element, so far as we know.

Ultimately, we can only perform this test with lenses that exist, and Canon currently only produces two STM lenses (and it really wouldn't be fair to use the unit-focus 40mm, which is trying to move lots of glass around). The 14-140mm Panasonic zoom is similarly fast, but that's a much more expensive lens, so we didn't think it was a fair comparison.

wait a minute, this new Hybrid AF is exactly the same hybrid AF as in my _over 4 years_ old Olympus E-420? It seems to do exactly the same things (first contrast af with mirror up and then pdaf with mirror down.) as E-420 with liveview when the lens is not supported by CDAF only function. Canon seems to be slightly faster, but the difference ain't big enough considering Oly's version has been available over four years already.

So what's the new thing here? Or is it just Canon inveting something again and by having more name trying to get the credit?

No, dropping the mirror to focus is what Canon calls "Quick AF". Hybrid AF is the one where the mirror only goes up /after/ the shot. You'll notice the lens overshoots and then iterates a bit to lock focus. That suggests that either the lens focus mass is too great or the phase-detect is not getting a good solution on the target. I wonder if there is any vertical vs. horizontal sensitivity to the Hybrid focus like with non-cross sensors.

Then what is the Hybrid part contributing? Does the overshoot behavior differ for subjects inside vs outside the center area? It may very well be that Hybrid AF has little or no real effect but you need to do a better job of showing it.

Panasonic's CDAF has come a long way since the G1. From what I gather, and after taking over 80,000 photos with my GH2, the G5 looks even faster than the flagship GH2. Makes me excited for the GH3 around the corner!

G3 AF is super fast.Some of the compact can AF faster due to a smaller lens. Smaller lens is due to smaller sensor. But this smaller sensor in G3 as compared to 650D does not lose out very much on image quality.

I'll give a better explanation:The screen on the left is using a so called "quick AF", when the user half-presses the shutter button, the mirror flips down so that the main AF sensor can be used, and then the mirror is flipped back up with AF is achieved, thus the screen blacks out.

I'm also a Canon user, and have no intention of upgrading my t3i, yet I do understand what Canon had done.

This is a DSLR, not a mirrorless. It has an excellent auto focus system (much better than yours or mine). IN ADDITION it has reasonable focus system for liveview. So for shooting sports, you'd use your OVF. Yet liveview can be used in many other conditions with the advantage of touchscreen interface.

That's about right. This video shows how slow the Hybrid AF is & since that is the only way the new EOS-M will also focus (using the same hybrid system as the EOS 650D), it's something that needs to be considered before buying the EOS-M. The Panasonic DMC-5 shows how much faster the opposition (to Canon) can focus.

"Does a hybrid mean putting 50% effort into PDAF and another 50% into CDAF?" No.Standard PHAF works be redirecting part of the light from the mirror in a dSLR to a special array of phase detect sensors. PHAF detects correct distance, tells lens move this far, done (sort of).With CDAF, you measure contrast on the sensor directly, you move lens a bit, measure, move lens a bit, measure until maximal contrast. Slow, but accurate (and no mirror of course).With the new hybrid sensor, you make a few pixels on the sensor so that they can detect phase directly on the sensor. So, it should be an improvement over CDAF, since now the camera can tell the lens how much and in what direction to focus, this seems to be followed up with standard CDAF to fine tune focus (at least in the current 650D).Here are some pictures of the hybrid sensorhttp://tinyurl.com/8f2tm9khttp://tinyurl.com/cvxypnd

qwertyasdf, simple question: do all lenses focus at the same CDAF speed for u4/3 designs? If not why not? The 18-135mm STM is itself a hybrid lens designed to work with any EOS camera as well as the new systems. While it's faster/smoother than the non-STM 18-135 it's not as highly optimized for fast CDAF as the small Panny.

I have tested the 14-140 (10X), the regular kit lens 14-42 and the pancake kit lens 14-42, 25mm F 1.4 and the 100-300mm and they are all phenomenally fast and unless you do some specific tests you won't notice a difference in real life situations. I have owned all these lenses at some point. Currently I have the pancake 14-42, 25mm 1.4 and the 100-300mm. I have owned several canon lenses when I had the Canon camera (70-200 F 4), 50 1.8, 100-400 and pentax lenses when I owned the pentax system (to which I moved from Canon) and then to Panasonic. The resolution on the kit lens is better than the kit lenses (except pentax) of other companies, the 25 1.4 is amazing, the 100-300 definitely leaves something to be desired in still photography, but excels in video, but GH2 is better for video resolution than even Mark III at lower ISOs, so there is no comparison there.

Doesn't look very specific where they are calculating the actual milli seconds it takes to focus. They are just touching the screen/shutter to see how fast it focusses. I am talking about measuring differences of .1 sec vs .2 sec. Maybe they are doing that as well.

Hybrid sounds nice and can potentially be great, but not with this T4i and therefore also not for the EOS-M too. It is disappointing to see Canon coming out with one model after another that is not really exciting lately in its affordable camera lines, when others gave us RX100, E-M5, FZ200, ....

Wait, conventional phase detect doesn't work in live view so you couldn't even record it! Unless you filmed through the viewfinder, which they didn't because they activated focus by touching the screen. Thinking about it, it is phase detect but live view has to be disengaged temporarily. the mirror comes down and focus is acquired. This takes more time than conventional phase detect.

What you described is exactly what happened. If you look at the first video, when the phase detect camera is pressed, there's a split-second blackout before the image reappears where focus is being achieved through phase detection (and then subsequently the image is taken regularly).

I think we'd consider the K-30 and 650D to be peers. However, that's not relevant to what we're showing here.

Nikon DSLRs also tend to be able to perform CDAF faster than the current generation of Canons (in general - I'm sure there are lens/body combination that suitably advantage one camera and disadvantage the other that you can reverse that if you really try).

However, no conventional DSLR gets close to offering the CDAF focus speed that the best of the current generation of mirrorless cameras, in part because they tend to have lenses that weren't designed for it.

Most that are serious about photography will be better off using the OVF anyway, and most that are serious about video recording will manual focus.Does not mean this comparison is invalid, but the features tested here are mainly aimed to the general point and shoot consumer.Just thought I'd get that out at anyone claiming one system is better than the other just by looking at the test above.

If it was made for video, slower is sometimes better. As long as it is smooth and doesn't distract the viewer. But for stills, it's pretty awful performance. I don't get how Canon could release such a product when they knew what they had to compete against. It isn't even in the same class. It's almost like it is just starting when the Panasonic is done.

"I don't get how Canon could release such a product when they knew what they had to compete against. It isn't even in the same class."

Yet most buyers are driven by brand recognition, not by rational testing, so 650D will be sold more than G5 (not to mention that it is so much more expensive that the absolute margins are also higher).

It shows that a well-designed contrast AF system is faster at single AF acquisition than Canon's current implementation of Hybrid AF.

In principle, it should be possible for Hybrid AF to offer the same speed - but that isn't the case yet. Its strength should be improved performance in movie shooting and continuous AF (not tested here).

But it looks like it is not even close to the well-designed contrast AF system. Therefore, it may be still worse than non-well-designed contrast AF. Also, why Canon even bother to implement this slow system? Can you turn this hybrid thing off? If you can, is contrast AF alone going to be faster? If it is, why have hybrid in the first place?

The Hybrid AF system an improvement over Canon's contrast-only system on the 600D, even if you fit the STM lens which should better cope with such focusing, so there wouldn't be any benefit to switching it off, even if you wanted.

Its theoretical advantages would be in continuous AF (for either stills or movies), since it can establish the distance to the subject. But that's something we'll cover in greater depth, soon.

NOw if only canon/nikon... Just remove the mirrors of their DSLRs, use same mounts, and flange distance something :- ) and use EVF instead.. And have hybrid AF.. Now that would be ideal.. I think the entry level bodies of canon and nikon are small already..

Although i hope nikon will put the AF screw, back on entry level bodies.. So i can use the smaller non afs lenses :-)

Except at the tele end, the array of lenses for the m4/3s system makes 35 f2 seem far less than exciting or even interesting. Amazing number of quality primes available for m4/3 and now with Pana coming out with a very sharp 12-35(24-70 equiv.) 2.8 IS the fun expands.